If what you say is true Creampuff, then how can CASA regulate anything at all?
There were two points I was trying to make in the posts about the suggested ‘improvements’ on 82.1 para 3.3.
The first point was that the shorter versions are not necessarily clearer.
The second was about the intent of the provision.
Normally, the intent of a provision is determined by reading what it says, in the context of the surrounding provisions and definitions and the other rules of interpretation. I therefore assume 82.1 para 3.3 is intended to mean what it says. What it says is pretty clear (at least to me).
But my main (second) point was that I have NFI about what the original intent was. It may be that the original intent of 82.1 para 3.3 was that all flight plan forms must be filled out in black ink. If that was the original intent, the provision appears not to give legal effect to that intent.
The original intent can only be determined by finding out what outcome the drafters were instructed to achieve. Chances of finding that out: somewhere between Buckley’s and none.
The question whether all of the people in CASA understand and accept the effect of the provision, properly interpreted? Those are very different questions.